"IS" islam being spread by the sword?

[gnostic]

The way I understand it, when Mecca had surrendered to Muhammad, he had letters written to their neighbours, the Byzantine and Persian empires, asking to convert his new religion.

I don't recall if either of the two reply to Muhammad, ignore him, or whatever, but had to invade Byzantine territory - Syria, but had died before this could happen. But they (Muslims) did invade Syria, and later Persia, in the 7th century, after his death. Apparently, they didn't like the answers or silence from either empires, so they aggressively invade both.

If that's not force, then what is it?

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

The way I understand it, when Mecca had surrendered to Muhammad, he had letters written to their neighbours, the Byzantine and Persian empires, asking to convert his new religion.

I don't recall if either of the two reply to Muhammad, ignore him, or whatever, but had to invade Byzantine territory - Syria, but had died before this could happen. But they (Muslims) did invade Syria, and later Persia, in the 7th century, after his death. Apparently, they didn't like the answers or silence from either empires, so they aggressively invade both.

If that's not force, then what is it?

Yes it is a good question.
Persians did not believe in the message of Muhammad, despite threat
But after the battle of Qadisiyah
Spread of Islam in Persia
And also in Syria, Egypt and Iraq
These areas were the base of the spread of Islam to other countries
Without the sword of Islam will not come out from Mecca
And without intimidation Today Islam is not going to stand in front of the mind
Thank you for the question

 

[Chev Chelios]

Quranic teaching is only for defensive fighting; and that is very natural.

Regards

Rubbish. 'Defensive' is open to interpretation and many things can be deemed as an attack. For example, Islamic theology stipulates that blasphemy is a crime punishable by death - it is seen as an attack on Islam. Therefore, by merely critiquing this belief system a person can be seen as having made an act of aggression on Islam which therefore gives the Moslem the right to react.

Indeed, Muhammad himself started wars such as those on the Romans. He did this by sending an ultimatum that they should accept Islam or be destroyed - the Byzantines then reacted to this threat by killing the messenger of Muhammad. Muhammad then attacks. So we see that it was Muhammad who started the war – it is astonishing that Moslems think they are allowed to threaten people with extinction and not expect them to react!

If we look at Islam’s scripture we see that Verse 9:29 of the Koran (which abrogates ‘let there be no compulsion in religion') makes a mockery of the claim that Islam allows only for defensive acts. So put simply - you are talking nonsense.

 

[Poeticus]

'Defensive' is open to interpretation and many things can be deemed as an attack.

In totality, this is what I would refer to as "defense-allocation". In other words, the purport (or more specifically, the inability to rationally evaluate that "instances of defense" are in reality actually just instances of rather an unnecessary offensive nature---especially in regards to religious outward rigorism) being: we were attacked and we responded. However, this is very misleading in most occasions, especially when it comes to the radical rigorism of militant ideologies. How so ? Because it can be misconstrued. For example, let us look at apostasy. In a radically rigorist, traditionally religious environment, a person leaving a particular strain of a particular faith has a legitimate probability to fall at the receiving end of mental and/or physical threats (societal ostracizing and/or death). In a pluralistic environment, on the other hand, the notion of having an innate right to believe and practice in a myriad of varying and often competing religious systems of thought without succumbing to social, economical, and political undercurrents, entails a setting where the prevalence of such dangers is radically less than the previous setting described.

To put it in simpler terms: deniability and the persistently blind adherence to dogmatic interpretations of one's socio-religious history can surely put a damper on progressive dialogue. Especially when facts are constantly disregarded and the concept of retraction is never utilized.

 

[Chev Chelios]

In totality, this is what I would refer to as "defense-allocation". In other words, the purport (or more specifically, the inability to rationally evaluate that "instances of defense" are in reality actually just instances of rather an unnecessary offensive nature---especially in regards to religious outward rigorism) being: we were attacked and we responded. However, this is very misleading in most occasions, especially when it comes to the radical rigorism of militant ideologies. How so ? Because it can be misconstrued. For example, let us look at apostasy. In a radically rigorist, traditionally religious environment, a person leaving a particular strain of a particular faith has a legitimate probability to fall at the receiving end of mental and/or physical threats (societal ostracizing and/or death). In a pluralistic environment, on the other hand, the notion of having an innate right to believe and practice in a myriad of varying and often competing religious systems of thought without succumbing to social, economical, and political undercurrents, entails a setting where the prevalence of such dangers is radically less than the previous setting described.

To put it in simpler terms: deniability and the persistently blind adherence to dogmatic interpretations of one's socio-religious history can surely put a damper on progressive dialogue. Especially when facts are constantly disregarded and the concept of retraction is never utilized.

Who are you Poeticus? I must say that you are quickly becoming my hero! Another perfect post and I agree - the idea of 'defensive' literally can be construed to mean anything one wants. The followers of Islam, more than any other, use this quite ludicrous notion to promote Islam's passivity. Of course, Islam itself can be thought of as akin to a supermarket where a person can take from it what one wants but this fact does not exempt it from being intimately linked to groups like the subject of this thread - ISIS. ISIS offer a deeply plausible interpretation of the faith and I find it astonishing that many Moslems, in an act of self servitude and pure protectionism, feel they have been endowed with some higher power which has given them some sort of divine authority which allows them to pass judgement on ISIS’s interpretation of Islam as 'a mis-reading' of the faith and/or what 'is and isn’t' a Moslem.

 

[paarsurrey]

Rubbish. 'Defensive' is open to interpretation and many things can be deemed as an attack. For example, Islamic theology stipulates that blasphemy is a crime punishable by death - it is seen as an attack on Islam. Therefore, by merely critiquing this belief system a person can be seen as having made an act of aggression on Islam which therefore gives the Moslem the right to react.

Indeed, Muhammad himself started wars such as those on the Romans. He did this by sending an ultimatum that they should accept Islam or be destroyed - the Byzantines then reacted to this threat by killing the messenger of Muhammad. Muhammad then attacks. So we see that it was Muhammad who started the war – it is astonishing that Moslems think they are allowed to threaten people with extinction and not expect them to react!

If we look at Islam’s scripture we see that Verse 9:29 of the Koran (which abrogates ‘let there be no compulsion in religion') makes a mockery of the claim that Islam allows only for defensive acts. So put simply - you are talking nonsense.

blasphemy is a crime punishable by death

Sorry; I don't agree with you.

Quran does not mention it; please quote from Quran to prove your point.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

The way I understand it, when Mecca had surrendered to Muhammad, he had letters written to their neighbours, the Byzantine and Persian empires, asking to convert his new religion.

I don't recall if either of the two reply to Muhammad, ignore him, or whatever, but had to invade Byzantine territory - Syria, but had died before this could happen. But they (Muslims) did invade Syria, and later Persia, in the 7th century, after his death. Apparently, they didn't like the answers or silence from either empires, so they aggressively invade both.

If that's not force, then what is it?

The letters were of peaceful contents; the rest is only your guesswork. Muhammad had a message from G-d; he had to convey that message to others; kings and rulers were no exceptions.

Even in these days Mirza Masroor Ahmad; the Head of Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat has written letters to the Prime Ministers and Presidents of different countries. I don't see any wrong in it.

Regards

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

Chev Chelioswrote in #105
Islam itself can be thought of as akin to a supermarket where a person can take from it what one wants but this fact
Gorgeous words and true
I agree with you in this idea
Can be considered a supermarket
One of the verses in the Quran says.
The monks and priests their eyes overflowing with tears and they are not proud
But at the same Koran there are any of those priests sent to charge people money to eat in falsehood
There are many examples
The truth is that the label is a scientific contradictions Koran
As a Muslim and he says it duplicator and copied

 

[gnostic]

Both Byzantine and Persian empires have been at war against each other's for decades, paarsurrey.

Telling them to convert to a new religion in letters, by a complete stranger and a nobody in Arabia, wouldn't interested either sides. It is doubtful they know anything about Muhammad or about his new religion.

News didn't travel as fast as it does today. And sending letters to these rulers on the same year of his entry into Mecca, is really expecting too much.

If the letters were peaceful, then why did Muslims invaded their territories after Muhammad's death?

You are right, we don't know the real contents of those letters, but if he is demanding conversions, then they would have ignored his letters.

For Muslims to attack the Byzantine province of Syria so soon, is not a peaceful act or act of self defense. The invasion of Persia was aggressive attack, not that ones of self defense, nor one of peaceful religion.

 

[paarsurrey]

Both Byzantine and Persian empires have been at war against each other's for decades, paarsurrey.

Telling them to convert to a new religion in letters, by a complete stranger and a nobody in Arabia, wouldn't interested either sides. It is doubtful they know anything about Muhammad or about his new religion.

News didn't travel as fast as it does today. And sending letters to these rulers on the same year of his entry into Mecca, is really expecting too much.

If the letters were peaceful, then why did Muslims invaded their territories after Muhammad's death?

You are right, we don't know the real contents of those letters, but if he is demanding conversions, then they would have ignored his letters.

For Muslims to attack the Byzantine province of Syria so soon, is not a peaceful act or act of self defense. The invasion of Persia was aggressive attack, not that ones of self defense, nor one of peaceful religion.

I think you are mistaken; Letters were sent to kings from Medina after contracting the PEACE TREATY OF HUDAIBYA with the Meccans; there were no plans for any conquests. Kaiser did receive the letter and had a long dialogue in this connection:

PROPHET MUHAMMAD’S LETTERS TO VARIOUS KINGS

After settling down in Medina on return from Hudaibiya, the Prophet instituted another plan for the spread of his Message. When he mentioned this to the Companions, some of them who were acquainted with the customs and forms observed in the courts of kings told the Prophet that kings did not entertain letters which did not bear the seals of the senders.

Accordingly the Prophet had a seal made on which were engraved the words, Muhammad Rasul Allah.
Out of reverence, Allah was put at the top, beneath it Rasul and lastly Muhammad.

In Muharram 628, envoys went to different capitals, each with a letter from the Prophet, inviting the rulers to accept Islam. Envoys went to Heraclius, the Roman Emperor, the Kings of Iran, Egypt (the King of Egypt was then a vassal of the Kaiser) and Abyssinia. They went to other kings and rulers also. The letter addressed to the Kaiser was taken by Dihya Kalbi who was instructed to call first on the Governor of Busra. When Dihya saw the Governor, the great Kaiser himself was in Syria on a tour of the Empire. The Governor readily passed Dihya on to the Kaiser.


Page-246-250
http://www.alislam.org/library/books/Introduction-Study-Holy-Quran.pdf

Please read its detail on pages 246-250 from the above link.

Regards